Setting Idea: Superpowers as "Woman's Work"
Recently on his livejournal, James Nicoll posited an interesting idea:
Quote: In the Eyes of Amber review, I said (of a setting where only women could be starship crew) Given past history I wouldn't expect men to be affronted by an inability to be a spacer. I'd expect them to dismiss the entire profession as beneath them, in as much as it's dominated by women
So, what I'm wondering is, what if we looked at superpowers in terms of "woman's work"? Consider how "women's" jobs such as weaving or knitting or childcare or housekeeping have been largely regarded by male dominated society ( consider how recently it was that archaeologists actually started looking for evidence of things such as weaving). Now, how would a power, say flight, or FTL travel, or whatever be defined, if it was possessed only by women? James Nicoll's argument is that rather than changing the way women are regarded, the way the power would be regarded would conform to patriarchal society; it would be considered "unimportant woman's work", and the usage of it would be limited and confined. You could have women using the power, but the control over it would not be given to them.
So imagine that women started developing super powers oh, a couple hundred years ago, say back in the 18th century. We'll assume that they aren't totally overpowering Justice League level powers, but effective nonetheless. My thought is that women could use those powers, sure, possibly even be paid to use them, but only in the societal context of male dominance. Use of those would be denigrated, dismissed, and controlled through use of social opprobrium, the same way traditional work and "unfeminine" activities were. Possibly the mere possession of those powers would be regarded as garish, unfeminine, and even immoral. Necessary of course, like the need for prostitutes for sailors, and a source for similarly titillating stories. A stereotype of the perfect wife and mother who either has no powers or gives them up for domesticity would be promoted, and a woman who freely used her powers would be regarded as freakish as a female weightlifter or sharpshooter (yes, you'll notice that this does leave a degree of flexibility for women to use powers, either privately or publicly; historically there's been a gap between what women are told they should do, and what they actually do)
And then we move along, and say, somewhere in the 1930s or 40s, men start developing those powers. How would that change things? Well, men's powers would likely be seen as quantitatively different; stronger, and purer, and a distillate of men's nature. Men would be encouraged to use their powers and push their strength. Unlike women's powers, men's powers would be seen as IMPORTANT.
Now move the timeline up to the 1970s, with NOW, Gloria Steinham, and "I'm Cheryl: fly me".
Have fun.
Quote: In the Eyes of Amber review, I said (of a setting where only women could be starship crew) Given past history I wouldn't expect men to be affronted by an inability to be a spacer. I'd expect them to dismiss the entire profession as beneath them, in as much as it's dominated by women
So, what I'm wondering is, what if we looked at superpowers in terms of "woman's work"? Consider how "women's" jobs such as weaving or knitting or childcare or housekeeping have been largely regarded by male dominated society ( consider how recently it was that archaeologists actually started looking for evidence of things such as weaving). Now, how would a power, say flight, or FTL travel, or whatever be defined, if it was possessed only by women? James Nicoll's argument is that rather than changing the way women are regarded, the way the power would be regarded would conform to patriarchal society; it would be considered "unimportant woman's work", and the usage of it would be limited and confined. You could have women using the power, but the control over it would not be given to them.
So imagine that women started developing super powers oh, a couple hundred years ago, say back in the 18th century. We'll assume that they aren't totally overpowering Justice League level powers, but effective nonetheless. My thought is that women could use those powers, sure, possibly even be paid to use them, but only in the societal context of male dominance. Use of those would be denigrated, dismissed, and controlled through use of social opprobrium, the same way traditional work and "unfeminine" activities were. Possibly the mere possession of those powers would be regarded as garish, unfeminine, and even immoral. Necessary of course, like the need for prostitutes for sailors, and a source for similarly titillating stories. A stereotype of the perfect wife and mother who either has no powers or gives them up for domesticity would be promoted, and a woman who freely used her powers would be regarded as freakish as a female weightlifter or sharpshooter (yes, you'll notice that this does leave a degree of flexibility for women to use powers, either privately or publicly; historically there's been a gap between what women are told they should do, and what they actually do)
And then we move along, and say, somewhere in the 1930s or 40s, men start developing those powers. How would that change things? Well, men's powers would likely be seen as quantitatively different; stronger, and purer, and a distillate of men's nature. Men would be encouraged to use their powers and push their strength. Unlike women's powers, men's powers would be seen as IMPORTANT.
Now move the timeline up to the 1970s, with NOW, Gloria Steinham, and "I'm Cheryl: fly me".
Have fun.